Interrogating White Men’s Allyship: Implications of Performativity for Qualitative Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, social movements have drawn attention to injustices and demanded action. In response, some White men have come to activism as allies. However, activists and scholars have problematized allyship by highlighting performative allies who claim the identity, but continue to replicate racist, sexist, homophobic, or colonial oppressive practices. To examine the methodological implications of this tension, I used a meta-methodology approach to select and analyze 13 qualitative allyship studies that drew on phenomenology, grounded theory, and critical theories/methodologies. I appraised the recruitment methods, data analysis, and trustworthiness procedures, and I assessed how the voice of the target group was integrated in each methodological genre. As a White male doctoral candidate in social work, I was drawn to critical ethnography’s focus on historicized power relations, the practice of co-implication, nomination procedures, member checking with minoritized groups, and other research practices that begin to address the tensions of performativity in allyship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".